AUSTIN, Texas (April 8, 2019) – A bill introduced in the Texas Senate would prohibit vaccines from being administered unless certain safety criteria are met. Passage of the bill would significantly strengthen vaccine safety testing requirements and push back against any future federal vaccine mandates.

Sen. Bob Hall (R) introduced Senate Bill 2350 (SB2350) on March 8. The legislation would only permit a health care provider to administer a vaccine if all of the following criteria are met.

The study the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relied upon for approval of the vaccine evaluated the vaccine against a placebo control group or against another vaccine or substance that the FDA approved based upon a placebo-controlled study;

The study relied upon by the FCA for approval of the vaccine evaluated the safety of the vaccine for a sufficient time to identify potential autoimmune, neurological, or chronic health conditions that may arise on or after a year from the vaccine being administered;

The vaccine has been evaluated for its potential to cause cancer, mutate genes, affect fertility, cause infertility and cause autism spectrum disorder;

The Texas Department of State Health Service has posted on its website disclosure of any known injuries or diseases caused by the vaccine and the rate at which the injuries or diseases have occurred; and

The chemical, pharmacological, therapeutic, and adverse effects of the vaccine and the rate of injury of the vaccine when administered with other vaccines, have been studied and verified.

Effect on Federal Policy

After recent comments by former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb in February of 2019 just prior to his resignation, some believe that federal vaccine mandates are imminent. According to CNN, Gottlieb said, “[I]f states don’t require more schoolchildren to get vaccinated, the federal government might have to step in.” Gottlieb also reportedly said, “You could mandate certain rules about what is and isn’t permissible when it comes to allowing people to have exemptions.” [1] As discussed below, current vaccine safety testing requirements are far less stringent than most would assume. Passage of SB 2350 would bolster these requirements and make enforcement of any federal vaccine mandates more difficult.

Number of Recommended Vaccines Steadily Rise Since Removal of Liability

Vaccine mandates are generally based upon the vaccine schedules recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Because vaccines pose a risk of injury or death, liability is associated with them. Many Americans are unaware that the pharmaceutical industry is shielded from liability for harm caused by most vaccines. This unique legal protection was put into place as a result of legislation passed in 1986, after extensive lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry. Manufacturers of other products don’t enjoy this freedom from liability. Due to lack of liability, vaccines are the pharmaceutical industry’s most lucrative product.

The 1986 law also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which is essentially a special system outside of the normal litigation process to hear claims of harm caused by vaccines. Any compensation granted by the NVICP is paid by the public, through a surcharge on vaccines, and not by vaccine manufacturers. To date, over four billion dollars has been paid under this system to compensate for harm caused by vaccines. [2]

Further, although discovery is a right afforded to litigants in most other legal forums, discovery is not permitted in the NVICP process. This protects vaccine manufacturers from having to search for, and produce, relevant information, including damaging information. In cases involving prescription medication, which are heard in other legal forums, information unfavorable to the pharmaceutical industry has come to light through discovery, such as the damaging e-mails which were required to be produced in the Vioxx litigation. [3] Read more here.

Hi Frederic Chopin,
Thanks. The article is behind a pay wall, but I did find out this about the "placebo"

"The placebo consisted of alum alone in the vaccine diluent. "

And the target audience; adult males over the age of 18 ; not being given any other vaccine, and also not the population who are being mandated to have the vaccine; ie babies, which includes premature and babies with autoimmune conditions.
Haven't yet found out how they were actually looking for and identifying side effects,( they seemed more focused on efficacy), nor yet what their funding/conflicts were ( though I did find it interesting that they were absolutely sure that no one should attempt to replicate their study ( because it would be unethical.)
As it stands though, since this study lacks a true placebo, (while thank you for your response) , this study, to paraphrase Star Wars, is not the study that meets the criteria I was looking for...

No we were talking about outlawing all vaccines without placebo-controlled trials. And childhood leukemia. Since the cure rate with chemo is 90% and essentially 0% without chemo I don't know why you'd think this would be a difficult parental decision. I also don't understand your claim unvaccinated children have a lower risk of leukemia.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700199/

Hi Frederic Chopin,
Could you link to a study of the Hepatitis B vaccine that uses a placebo and last over an extended period of time, please? If people are wrong,fair enough,but please then provide the actual study that proves it.
Of course, 7 months would not be long enough to identify autoimmune diseases, given that the average time of diagnosis from onset of a serious autoimmune disease is more than 4 years...https://www.aarda.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/tips_for_auto_diagnosis.pdf
Thank you
Hera

Were we not talking about vaccine mandates? Parents of children with acute leukemia have many difficult decisions to make, but the one certain thing is that unvaxxed children have much lower incidence of leukemia than vaxxed children. That being said, a large number of patients are killed by the chemotherapy which was supposed to help them, so everyone must bear that and the severe impact it always has on the patient's health in mind before going into it. Neither chemo nor vaccines should be forced on anyone unwilling to take the risk.

Getting the natural childhood diseases (NOT talking about tetanus, diphtheria, polio, nor clinical cases of meningitis) is the best possible preparation for life that a child could have, and denying children this opportunity by forcing vaccines on them impairs their health for life. And that's in addition to the parent's natural reluctance to risk autism, autoimmune disease, diabetes, seizure disorders, and allergies so often caused by vaccines.

"Infection is one of the greatest cures there can be. In fact, infection can prevent cancer and other illnesses, and yes, cure them. In a 2005 epidemiological study covering over 151 previous studies, researchers from the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia found an inverse association between acute infections and cancer development. According to the abstract of this study, entitled, “Acute infections as a means of cancer prevention: Opposing effects to chronic infections?”, exposures to febrile infectious childhood diseases were associated with subsequently reduced risks for melanoma, ovary, and multiple cancers combined, significant in the latter two groups.

Furthermore, epidemiological studies on common acute infections in adults and subsequent cancer development found these infections to be associated with reduced risks for meningioma, glioma, melanoma and multiple cancers combined, significantly for the latter three groups. Overall, risk reduction increased with the frequency of infections, with febrile infections affording the greatest protection. In other words, children who experienced all the typical childhood infections were most protected from developing cancers in adult life."

"For most already healthy people, the immunity conferred by this splendid and massive outpouring is absolute, lifelong, and profoundly health-giving in two important senses. First, it is specific, in the obvious sense that virtually everyone who recovers from the measles will never again be susceptible to it, no matter how many times they are reexposed to the virus, or how many epidemics of the disease may be raging all around them. Less often talked about but at least equally important is the nonspecific immunity that results from having activated the whole army of immune mechanisms across the board, thus priming the system to respond acutely, vigorously, and in a concerted fashion to whatever other infections it may encounter in the future.

In both respects, the natural immunity acquired by coming down with and recovering from acute diseases like the measles, typically characterized by fever and resulting in expulsion of the offending virus or bacterium from the blood, represents an enormous net gain for the general health of individuals and their descendants, and thereby also of the community, the nation, and ultimately of human life on the planet as a whole.

Amid the impressive array of new vaccines and the noisy bullying employed to promote them, it is easily forgotten that the growth, development, and maturation of a healthy immune system is accomplished mainly by learning how to mount such acute, vigorous responses to infection, and that the challenges of coming down with and recovering from the illnesses of this type are the formative experiences by which this fundamental prerequisite of good health is achieved and maintained throughout life.

This basic truth is reinforced by a considerable body of epidemiological research to the effect that contracting and recovering from measles, mumps, chicken pox, influenza, and other acute childhood illnesses with fever provides significant protection against many chronic diseases later in life, including many autoimmune diseases and even cancer of various types."

All of the Recombivax trials required 3 doses spread out over at least 7 months, plus further f/u for antibody titers, but I know claiming children were followed for only 5 days is common AV misinformation.

Cia,

How would you treat a child with acute leukemia? Homeopathy? Do you really believe 30% of them die within 10 minutes of chemo?

Doctors in India have expressed concerns about the Pentavalent vaccine in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, and suggested it could be behind around 8100 deaths annually in Indian children. The WHO responded to the global reports of deaths by revising the reporting system such that the deaths could not be ascribed to the vaccine making Dr. Jacob Puliyel lament, "Even deaths are no longer a contraindication to vaccination."

An RTI query in 2018 made the Indian government concede 10,612 deaths after vaccinations provided under the universal immunization programme from 2008 to 2018. It also revealed upwards of 600,000 adverse effects are reported every year. Government officials hint at coincidence. The OPV vaccine being given with religious fervour in India has been attributed to 491,704 cases of paralysis in Indian children from 2000 to 2017 and the criticism against the study methodology has been countered effectively. Such figures do not inspire confidence, nor does the response. The private sector in India vaccinates 2.7 million children or more annually and has no monitoring system

The informed consent clause is a recipe for how to prey on the illiterate exactly why clinical trials seek less developed countries, especially lower income, people living in poverty and squalor.

Informed consent--4.8.9 If a subject is unable to read or if a legally acceptable representative is unable to read, an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent discussion. After the written informed consent form and any other written information to be provided to subjects, is read and explained to the subject or the subject’s legally acceptable representative, and after the subject or the subject’s legally acceptable representative has orally consented to the subject’s participation in the trial and, if capable of doing so, has signed and personally dated the informed consent form, the witness should sign and personally date the consent form. By signing the consent form, the witness attests that the information in the consent form and any other written information was accurately explained to, and "APPARENTLY" understood by, the subject or the subject’s legally acceptable representative, and that informed consent was freely given by the subject or the subject’s legally acceptable representative.

The disclaimer alone that clinical trials performed in the future will be exactly as they have been conducted in the past with every manner of deception humans will use to bring a product to market.

DISCLAIMER: The findings, opinions, and assertions contained in this consensus document are those of the individual scientific professional members of the working group. They do not necessarily represent the official positions of each participant’s organization (e.g., government, university, or corporations). Specifically, the findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Considering there have been over $4 BILLION in quietly gagged Federal vaccine injury settlements, this is probably a good idea. Those were the worst of the worst. People with autism and brain injury cases that are less severe don't even see their day in court. You can't sue the drug companies. The government has one court that all the worst cases go through.

It's amazing to me that people that are blindly on board with the current vaccine schedule aren't aware of the history of cases. One size fits all medicine does not work.

What facts? I just see a lot of aspirational nonsense from 2013 - not even mentioning placebo as far as I can see - and scarcely bearing on any product on the current schedule. Aren’t you being just a teensy-weensy bit naive.

Here’s an idea, let’s look at facts re current vaccine trials, the “Brighton Collaboration” in 2009 set uniform templates for safety studies vaccine trials, given here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586124/ Brighton Collaboration is at www.brightoncollaboration.org

Please note: Comment: A clinic visit or other contact should be required at least six months after the last dose of study vaccine to ascertain additional SAE and new onset of chronic illnesses[6].

Note the title Hans et al “Template protocol for clinical trials investigating vaccines—Focus on safety elements☆” There are 18 pages of detailed instructions, agreed internationally, on how to conduct trials on new vaccines, be they Phase I, II, III or IV, I’d suggest you read this to get a better understanding of the issues.

And if the chemo kills 30% of the cancer patients within ten minutes of its starting to be infused into the patient, no worries! It still saves 55% of them, so totally acceptable risk, n'est-ce pas? What about parents who just don't want to take the 30% risk of death and prefer to consider other options? You don't think they have that right? And if someone proposes studying the therapy to see exactly why it kills so many, they should be gagged and gulagged? Oh, well, I must consider the source and let it pass.

That's a YouTube video. But if you're saying there are CDC recommended and FDA approved vaccines with only 4 days of safety monitoring please name them. Also which hepatitis B trial are you referring to?

Fred, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbDqqjs2g3N1F9FXps4JWJZzHDWI4mRjd )
I think the lawmakers in Texas listened to Stanley Plotkin's deposition last year. He confirmed the following under oath: Safety monitoring for some vaccines lasted only 4 days. He was asked if that was long enough to detect autoimmunity, seizures or other neurological problems. His response: “No”. He was asked if there was there a placebo/control group in the Trial for Hep B? His response: “No”.
Pro-vaccine now means anti-science.

Fred, I worked for an IRB (Compliance and Reporting). I have yet to meet an IRB member who does not understand the difference between prevention and treatment. The IRB ensures informed consent by study participants about risks.
I found this quote attributed to Professor Heidi Malm from: https://www.thehastingscenter.org/what-is-an-ounce-of-prevention-really-worth/
“Treatment must be supported by [only] a preponderance of the available evidence [whereas prevention requires]clear and convincing evidence or, even stronger, evidence showing it to be beyond a reasonable doubt that the recommended procedure will be good for the patient, all things considered.”
Vaccines must be held to a higher standard than clinical treatment trials and should not be exempt from the standards stated in the proposed Texas law.

Like B A M's comment, that's a strawman argument. Vaccines go through rigorous trials before they are FDA approved and CDC recommended. They're also continuously monitored for safety and effectiveness.

Vaccines aren't given to cure people - they're given to prevent infections. Ethically, not vaccinating children against VPDs is as bad as not treating children with cancer. Consequently, no IRB will ever approve a prospective placebo-controlled vaccine trial for any VPD for which we already have an effective vaccine. Hopefully the majority of Texas lawmakers can grasp that concept.

Fred, Are you saying healthy children are interchangeable with kids with cancer? Or do you believe ALL children are born with Hep B, Diphtheria, Pertussis, Measles etc. and vaccines cure them? Just trying to understand your logic.

It's unethical to use placebos when there are already effective options for a serious disease. For instance in a chemotherapy trial for childhood leukemia, where there is already a 90% cure rate, giving a control group placebos would be criminal.

I thought that too, and that at least those reading about it will be astonished that such testing has not already been done. Although nothing would be able to make the vaccines safe. Those who get them may be making the right choice in some instances, but they have to realize the risk they are taking as well. Also true that such testing will never be done. How could it be? To test for their cancer-causing potential, for example, would require decades and would require a large control group which had never received any vaccines. And there is no such group which could be used as a control.

It seems like a gimmick, a way of drawing attention to the fact that vaccines have never been proven safe, which certainly means that no one should be compelled to take any of them. I think it would have been better to be more straightforward and to have proposed a law making all mandates illegal, and then used the points in this law to show why it is not moral to compel anyone to take them, because no such testing has ever been done and no vaccine has ever been proven safe. Effective, yes, in most cases, but never safe for everyone or even anyone. But it's good if some politicians realize that there are a lot of political gains to be made among the huge numbers of vaccine critics among their constituents. But this particular law could not ever have been proposed by anyone's thinking that it might be made into law.

The bill has been introduced. There's no way that it will be passed. The testing it would demand have not been done on ANY vaccines, and I'm 100% sure that the pharma lobby and its millions of supporters will not let these requirements be written into a law.

Thank you Texas. I am always looking for ways to convince people not to be intellectually lazy about this topic. Last year I sent the following link to my daughter. Prior to reading this she called me a conspiracy theorist for believing vaccines cause autism. It was a turning point for her. https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/04/neurodiversity-dead-now-what/